The Relationship Between Trinity and Soteriology in Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John and on First Principles Michael L
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cedarville University DigitalCommons@Cedarville Biblical and Theological Studies Faculty School of Biblical and Theological Studies Presentations 2003 The Relationship Between Trinity and Soteriology in Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John and On First Principles Michael L. Chiavone Cedarville University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/ biblical_and_ministry_studies_presentations Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Chiavone, Michael L., "The Relationship Between Trinity and Soteriology in Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John and On First Principles" (2003). Biblical and Theological Studies Faculty Presentations. 132. http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/biblical_and_ministry_studies_presentations/132 This Conference Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Cedarville, a service of the Centennial Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biblical and Theological Studies Faculty Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Cedarville. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRINITY AND SOTERIOLOGY IN ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND ON FIRST PRINCIPLES A Research Paper Presented to Dr. Andreas Köstenberger in partial fulfillment of the requirements for 0575 Integrative Seminar Michael L. Chiavone Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary May 9, 2003 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRINITY AND SOTERIOLOGY IN ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND ON FIRST PRINCIPLES Only a courageous man should write theology. The Christian in the pew can entertain within his own mind heresies in every portion of his faith, but the man who writes his thoughts down opens himself to criticism, not only by his contemporaries, but by generations of succeeding believers. This criticism is almost certain to become increasingly unfair as time passes. The meanings of words will change, new standards of orthodoxy will be established, and the words and works of students and opponents alike will distort the position of the theologian in the eyes of his later critics, to whom he will be unable to respond. It should not come as a surprise, then, that Origen of Alexandria was perhaps the most prolific author of the early church, for he was a man of unquestioned zeal and courage.1 Because he was courageous, he was willing not only to write what Christians believe, but also to speculate about how these things they believe may be. This mixture of orthodox exposition and seemingly heretical speculation has mystified those who follow Origen.2 As Fairweather puts it: Love and Hatred encircle the name of Origen This was the case already in his lifetime. Some distrusted him as a heretic, others invoked his aid to silence heretics; by some he was 1Henri Crouzel, Origen, trans. A. S. Worrell (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 8–11, 37; Joseph W. Trigg, “Origen and Origenism in the 1990s,” Religious Studies Review 22 (Oct 1996): 301; Henri de Lubac, “Origen: On First Principles,” Communio (US) 25 (Sum 1998): 343; William Fairweather, Origen and Greek Patristic Theology (New York: Scribner’s, 1901), 39–42. 2Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 48. 1 2 almost worshipped [sic], by others he was bitterly disliked. And sometimes he suffered as much at the hands of his injudicious partisans as from the opposition of his deadliest enemies; for if the latter unscrupulously misrepresented his views, the former frequently refined upon them.3 Even Rufinus, who translated many of Origen’s extant works into Latin with apologetic glosses, was puzzled by Origen’s ability to be both orthodox and unorthodox.4 Usually, this vacillation between orthodoxy and heterodoxy occurs when he moves from one doctrine to another. When dealing with the Scriptures, Origen argues that they are divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant; humanly authored, and therefore personal; and that their meaning, even when it is allegorical, is based on authorial intent.5 All in all, this is an impressively orthodox position. When dealing with anthropology, however, Origen holds that men are pre-existent souls which became embodied on earth when they fell from their original state.6 Few Christians today would agree with anything Origen says about the origin of man. Like his ancient successors, one can therefore find in Origen some doctrines with which one heartily agrees, and others which are patently unacceptable.7 3Fairweather, Origen and Patristic, 238. 4G. W. Butterworth, introduction to Origen, On First Principles, trans. G. W. Butterworth (New York: Harper&Row, 1966), liv. 5Fairweather, Origen and Patristic, 68–70; Ronald E. Heine, introduction to Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Books 1–10, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, vol. 80, trans. Ronald E. Heine (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 13. 6Citations from Origen’s On First Principles will henceforth be designated with the abbreviation DP, and will be cited by book, chapter, and paragraph, along with the page on which they appear in Origen, On First Principles, trans. G. W. Butterworth (New York: Harper&Row, 1966). 7Elizabeth A. Clark, “Elite Networks and Heresy Accusations: Towards a Social Description of the Origenist Controversy,” Semeia 56 (1991): 94. 3 When one comes to Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity, however, true doctrine and heresy seem to exist side by side. Origen moves away from the materialistic conceptions of God common to Tertullian and Justin Martyr and states that God is truly incorporeal. This allows for a generation of the Son which neither divides the Godhead nor diminishes the Father, and lays the foundation for Cappadocian thought.8 Yet serious subordinationism is also evident in Origen’s scheme.9 One must wonder why. Origen’s works overflow with love for the Son as Savior, so it is unreasonable to believe he demeans his deity for no reason.10 It is obvious that Origen did not intend to be a heretic, for he considered himself a man of the church, and in fact wrote to convert heretics.11 Admittedly, at the time of his writing clear criteria like those of Nicea had not yet been established. But he maintained a subordinationist doctrine of the Trinity despite holding to a philosophical scheme which allowed his immediate successor, Gregory Thaumaturgus, to understand the members of the Trinity as ontologically equal.12 This paper will argue that Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity, as presented in On First Principles and his Commentary on the Gospel of John, is subordinationist primarily for soteriological reasons. More precisely, it will propose that Origen constructed a trinitarian 8Bernard Lonergan, The Way to Nicea, trans. Conn O’Donovan (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 60; Herbert Musurillo, “The Recent Revival of Origen Studies,” Theological Studies 24 (Je 1963): 261; Crouzel, Origen, 182. 9Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, trans. John Bowden, 2d ed.,vol. 1 (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 166; Musurillo, “Revival,” 261. 10de Lubac, “Origen,” 345–46; Crouzel, Origen, 197. 11de Lubac, “Origen,” 347, 344; Crouzel, Origen, 13. 12Grillmeier, Christ, 166. 4 doctrine which allowed him to protect the nature of the Father while allowing the salvation of men. First, Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity in these works will be examined. Then, several proposed methods for understanding the errors in his thought will be considered. Finally, Origen’s doctrine of salvation will be examined, and the manner in which it depends upon the Origenistic Trinity will be highlighted. Origen’s Doctrine of the Trinity It is interesting to note that, despite centuries of study, there is still disagreement about the exact nature of Origen’s trinitarian thought. The reasonable place to begin in examining anyone’s doctrine is his own writing, yet at this point difficulties arise. The vast majority of his original works were destroyed under Justinian.13 Because only a few Greek fragments remain, the modern reader must rely primarily on the Latin translations of Rufinus and Jerome, both of which are suspect.14 There are places where Rufinus’s text, when compared with Greek fragments, reveals that Rufinus has clearly made changes to make Origen more orthodox.15 Other textual variants indicate that some sections of Origen’s Greek text were left out of the Latin translation, and these are often distinctly heretical.16 Rufinus assumed that the text had been tampered with by heretics, and as such felt free to make emendations necessary to restore what he believed had to have been Origen’s original thought.17 In light of these difficulties, no attempt will be made to 13Crouzel, Origen, 41; de Lubac, “Origen,” 341. 14Musurillo, “Revival,” 252–53. 15DP, 1.2.6, 20. 16DP, 3.1.5, 33. 17Butterworth, On First Principles, xxxiv. 5 analyze Origen’s language in a technical sense. Instead, the general flow of his thought, his consistent emphases, and his major themes will be observed. In this examination, On First Principles will serve as the primary text, with additional material being drawn from the Commentary on the Gospel of John as appropriate. Origen’s Own Thought Origen presents his doctrine of the Trinity throughout his writings. Here, five aspects of that thought will be examined. Origen’s thoughts on the basic nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit will be observed. Then, the manner in which they are united will be presented. Finally, the distinctions between them, distinctions which imply ontological subordination, will be examined. The Father Origen rehearses his understanding of the apostolic teaching about the Father in the preface to On First Principles: First, that God is one, who created and set in order all things, and who, when nothing existed, caused the universe to be. He is God from the first creation and foundation of the world, the God of all righteous men, of Adam, Abel...Moses and the prophets.